On Mon 16/Mar/2015 05:17:37 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> This seems to be a bug:
>>
>> OLD:
>> dmarc-uri = URI [ "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ] ]
>>; "URI" is imported from [URI]; comm
Alessandro Vesely writes:
> If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better
> to repeat than to omit.
-1. It's good that you read the spec, but that's not the primary
purpose of the spec. It's a bad idea to repeat definitions clearly
stated in another document (even in infor
> Alessandro Vesely writes:
> > If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better
> > to repeat than to omit.
> -1. It's good that you read the spec, but that's not the primary
> purpose of the spec. It's a bad idea to repeat definitions clearly
> stated in another document (e
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > Section 2.2 of RFC3986 lists semi-colon as a reserved character that has
> to
> > be percent-encoded in these URLs. We don't need to repeat it here, I
> think.
>
> If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better to r
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> Your question is "Are they equivalent?" I believe they are. Although it
> might be ideal to have a specification so tight that there's exactly one
> way to do something, in the end I don't think it's harmful to have two ways
> to sa
On 03/16/2015 12:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> [...]
>
> The goal in allowing a comma-separated list of URLs is that you might
> conceivably want to put an http and a mailto URL in there, in the "try
> A first, then try B" sense. We need to allow for that possibility.
> We also need to acco
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
> Just to be explicit, it also allows for multiple mailto: URIs -
> something that is seen "in the wild," though perhaps not if one looks up
> a half dozen DMARC records at random. But at the end of January multiple
> mailto: URIs could be s
